State Tax Commission of
CHARLES G. CRAWFORD, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 06-62524
)
DON DAVIS, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Hearing Officer finds classification of subject property to be commercial; true value in money for the subject property for tax year 2006 is set at $66,740, assessed value of $21,360.
Complainant appeared in person.
Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel Nathanial Dally.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
ISSUE
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the classification of land and improvements.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals on the ground of classification. On or about August 18, 2006, complainant received a Notice of Change in Assessed Value of Real Property for property located at 2906 S. Main, Joplin, Missouri, map parcel number 19-5.0-14-40-032-016.000, legal description Lukes Southern Lot 69. The notice listed an appraised value of $66,740, an assessed valued of $21,360, but classified the property as residential. On or about November 16, 2006, the Assessor mailed to the Complainant a corrected Notice of Change in assessed value. The appraised value remained at $66,740, assessed value of $21,360 but classified the property as commercial. The corrected notice was after the time to appeal to the Board of Equalization.
A hearing was
conducted on March 7, 2006 in the Jasper County Annex,
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s
Evidence
Complainant testified on his own behalf.
Respondent’s
Evidence
Respondent filed the following exhibits:
Exhibit A : Assessor’s file on property since 1996 and three photographs of the subject property.
Respondent
placed into evidence the testimony Lisa Perry, an employee of
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant appealed to the State Tax Commission from the Amended Informal Hearing Results dated November 16, 2006.
2. The subject property is located at 2906
S. Main,
3. Complainant does not contest the assessed value of $66,740.00.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND DECISION
Jurisdiction
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo. An informal hearing was conducted. The Board of Equalization did not conduct a hearing due to the late notice of change of assessed value by the assessor. The State Tax Commission accepted the appeal. Buck v. Leggett 813 S.W.2d 872 (1975). Pursuant to Section 138.380, RSMo, the Commission is mandated to correct any errors that may be found on the assessment rolls and to cause the proper entry to be made thereon. The Hearing Officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious. Section 138.431.4, RSMo.
Presumptions in Appeals
The Supreme
Court of Missouri has held, “A tax assessor’s valuation is presumed
correct.” Snider v. Casino
Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s valuation is erroneous. Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra. Complainant’s evidence failed to rebut the presumption.
Residential and Commercial
Property
For property tax purposes, Missouri law provides that real property is to be classified into one of three categories: residential property, agricultural and horticultural property, and utility, industrial, commercial, railroad, and other real property. Section 4(b), article X of the Missouri Constitution. The classification depends on the use of the property. The categories are defined by statute in Section 137.016.1, RSMo 2000. In relevant part, the statute provides:
(1) "Residential property", all real property improved by a structure which is used or intended to be used for residential living by human occupants, vacant land in connection with an airport, land used as a golf course, and manufactured home parks, but residential property shall not include other similar facilities used primarily for transient housing. For the purposes of this section, "transient housing" means all rooms available for rent or lease for which the receipts from the rent or lease of such rooms are subject to state sales tax pursuant to section 144.020.1(6), RSMo; …
(3) "Utility, industrial, commercial, railroad and other real property", all real property used directly or indirectly, for any commercial, mining, industrial, manufacturing, trade, professional, business, or similar purpose, including all property centrally assessed by the state tax commission but shall not include floating docks, portions of which are separately owned and the remainder of which is designated for common ownership and in which no one person or business entity owns more than five individual units. All other real property not included in the property listed in subclasses (1) and (2) of section 4(b) of article X of the Missouri Constitution, as such property is defined in this section, shall be deemed to be included in the term "utility, industrial, commercial, railroad and other real property". …
Complainant's Burden of Proof
In
order to prevail, Complainant must present substantial and persuasive evidence
that the subject property as of January 1, 2006, met the statutory definition
of residential property. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Com'n, 564 S.W.2d at 897.
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See,
Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Com'n, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (
Complainant testified that the subject property was originally a residential structure. He purchased the property in 1996 and has used it for his business, The Mortgage House, since that time. He has made no modifications to the interior of the structure.
Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive. Since the real property was used for commercial purposes on January 1, 2006, the property is commercial property and therefore the presumption of correct assessment by assessor stands.
ORDER
The classification
for subject property as determined by the assessor of
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432, RSMo 2000.
If an application for review of this decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission. If no application for review is received by the Commission within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Jasper County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall disburse the protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accord with the decision on the underlying assessment in this appeal. If any or all protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, either party may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.
Any Finding of Fact which is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed. Any Decision which is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.
SO ORDERED March 14, 2007.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
_____________________________________
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 14th day of March, 2007, to: Charles Crawford, 2906 S. Main, Joplin, MO 64804, Complainant; Dean Dankelson, Prosecuting Attorney, 601 Pearl, Room 100, Joplin, MO 64801, Attorney for Respondent; Donald Davis, Assessor, 302 S. Main Street, Carthage, MO 64836; Bonnie Earl, Clerk, Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, MO 64836; Stephen Holt, Collector, Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, MO 64836.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator